RE: shell scripting style question
-Original Message- From: Kevin D. Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:31 PM To: Charles Farinella Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: convert large number of graphics [...] for A in `find /yourdir \( -name \*.bmp -o -name \*.BMP \) -print` ; do bmptoppm $A | ppmtojpeg `echo $A | sed 's/\.bmp/.jpg/i'` done Just out of curiosity, is the only difference between using find and ls -R (in this particular case) that you can use more than one glob argument? Erik ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: shell scripting style question
Price, Erik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: Kevin D. Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:31 PM To: Charles Farinella Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: convert large number of graphics [...] for A in `find /yourdir \( -name \*.bmp -o -name \*.BMP \) -print` ; do bmptoppm $A | ppmtojpeg `echo $A | sed 's/\.bmp/.jpg/i'` done Just out of curiosity, is the only difference between using find and ls -R (in this particular case) that you can use more than one glob argument? Well, go to the top of a directory tree and type: find . -print and compare this with ls -R . | cat (or ls -1R -- ls outputs differently if it believes that it isn't connected to a tty) The output is different. One happens to be easier to work with, IMHO. find happens to be one of my favorite tools. --kevin -- ``I also suggest that UNIX offers something else prized in literature: a coherence, a consistent style, something writers call a voice.'' -- Thomas Scoville, ``The Elements of Style: Unix As Literature'', Unix Review's Performance Computing, September 1998 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
RE: shell scripting style question
-Original Message-
From: Kevin D. Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:29 AM
To: Price, Erik
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: shell scripting style question
[...]
The output is different. One happens to be easier to work with, IMHO.
find happens to be one of my favorite tools.
I had forgotten that ls -R formats its output differently than
when it is non-recursive.
I think find is cool but I am not familiar with some of the
more advanced arguments, such as -exec {} etc... someone put on
a whole presentation on find at a LUG I was a part of at UMass
once, but I was unable to make that meeting.
I will have to /usr/bin/find some time to read the man page.
Erik
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: convert large number of graphics
In a message dated: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:22:00 EST Charles Farinella said: I have to convert over 200 .bmp files to .jpg. Is there a tool I can run from a command line to do this? I looked at the documentation for both xv and display, but found nothing. Suggestions? Probably answered by now, but I'm 2 days behind in my e-mail :) Install the ImageMagick package and use the 'convert' utility. -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: shell scripting style question
There are several differences. I'd actually do the following:
find /yourdir -iname *.bmp -exec convert {} {}.jpg \;
Of course, if all the images are in a single subdirectory then a for
loop would be better because you can do more variable substitution inside.
Something like this:
for file in /dir/*.bmp /dir/*.BMP
do
bname=${file%.}
convert ${file} ${bname}.jpg
done
That's in a sh-oriented syntax. Switching to csh is pretty simple.
Price, Erik wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kevin D. Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:31 PM
To: Charles Farinella
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: convert large number of graphics
[...]
for A in `find /yourdir \( -name \*.bmp -o -name \*.BMP \)
-print` ; do
bmptoppm $A | ppmtojpeg `echo $A | sed 's/\.bmp/.jpg/i'`
done
Just out of curiosity, is the only difference between using
find and ls -R (in this particular case) that you can
use more than one glob argument?
Erik
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: shell scripting style question
I think of this question as being about the basic behaviors of some important tools (the shell, find and ls) that are worth understanding in their own right; the style or scripting aspects seem secondary. Just out of curiosity, is the only difference between using find and ls -R (in this particular case) that you can use more than one glob argument? You can specify multiple paths (which can in turn be the result of shell globbing) to find, so that doesn't really count as a difference. Actually, find can also do its own globbing (ie. file selection based on Regular Expressions applied to filenames) where ls cannot. In general, find is the far more powerful tool. For example, you can tell find to mention all files with a particular combination of permissions, ownership and modification time at a certain directory nesting level. I usually think of ls as a pretty-printer for directory listings while find is the workhorse utility for driving other tools, though ls can be used in similar ways in the less demanding situations. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: convert large number of graphics
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, John Abreau wrote: Charles Farinella [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have to convert over 200 .bmp files to .jpg. Is there a tool I can run from a command line to do this? I looked at the documentation for both xv and display, but found nothing. Suggestions? You guys are great, thanks! Just what I needed. --charlie Sure. display is the GUI component of ImageMagick; there are also a bunch of command-line components. convert will convert between different image formats: for i in *.bmp ; do convert $i `basename $8 .bmp`.jpg ; done or, if you're using a csh-flavored shell: foreach i ( *.bmp ) convert $i `basename $i .bmp`.jpg end - -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iQCVAwUBPe6CWVV9A5rVx7XZAQJnhwP/dPQ2zkJFriovQsVD5grq1W3RaHu/wyLB 8p7+gnAHqAQXiirCTjBPzc6fxPh7ugtjipWoHQ9XBhVsCnAW3wkyxZzg/srJpKGK tQnUKHMjDG3hHDWjunS+7zaDHikbUVNyNFEbTqejNMAIURzHo9eOneIE9v3Ro0Jl oRpTXfmkAjI= =gDxO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss -- Charlie Farinella, Appropriate Solutions, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 603-924-6079 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: shell scripting style question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The ls(1) command is oriented more towards human consumption. The find(1) command simple outputs a list of filenames, which is more suitable for consumption by other programs. I think find was targeted for use with cpio originally. They both had the same author. They deal with arguments and options a bit different then the other standard unix tools. I'm almost surprised someone hasn't come up with a find replacement that feels more like the other unix tools. Tar certainly replaced cpio. Then again, find works well as it is and I'm not sure you could replace its syntax as easily. -- --- Tom Buskey ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: shell scripting style question
I think that find has been around longer than cpio. I also think that it is an immensely useful Unix utility. Recursive descent was added to commands like ls and cp more recently. But, ls is more humanly usable. Tom Buskey wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The ls(1) command is oriented more towards human consumption. The find(1) command simple outputs a list of filenames, which is more suitable for consumption by other programs. I think find was targeted for use with cpio originally. They both had the same author. They deal with arguments and options a bit different then the other standard unix tools. I'm almost surprised someone hasn't come up with a find replacement that feels more like the other unix tools. Tar certainly replaced cpio. Then again, find works well as it is and I'm not sure you could replace its syntax as easily. -- --- Tom Buskey ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
MonadLUG Thurs Night Meeting called due to weather.
Due to the inclement weather and lousy driving conditions, the Monadnock Linux Users Group meeting for tonight (Thursday) is canceled. Ray -- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
RE: Wal Mart sells cheap linux boxes
They have been doing this for a while.. Few things about it.. They use mini-ITX motherboard, I recently got one, they're neat, you can see what people have done with them at mini-itx.com. They also come with Lindows, something I'm not to thrilled about.. They had some tweaked version of WINE and some other stuff and there was a big fight to get them to release the code (because it's GPL'd or some form of a license very close to that), there was also some other stuff the messed around with and never released the code for, anyway, Lindows isn't very linux friendly. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Price, Erik Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wal Mart sells cheap linux boxes (from http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/12/05/sproject.hs02.cheap. pc.reut/index.html) quote By dropping software from Microsoft and avoiding Intel inside, retailer Wal-Mart Stores is offering a $199 computer it says is a hot seller on its Web site, attracting novices looking for a way onto the Internet as well as high-end users wanting a second box. /quote ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug -discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
